Bava Batra 64

ואי סלקא דעתך בסתמא קני עומקא ורומא כי גבוה עשרה טפחים מאי הוי כיון דגבוה עשרה טפחים חשיב

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer acquires the depth and the height of the house, then even when it has a parapet ten handbreadths high, what of it? Why shouldn’t the buyer acquire the roof? The Gemara answers: Since the parapet is ten handbreadths high, the roof is significant in its own right, and therefore, unless it is specifically included in the sale, the buyer does not acquire such a roof along with the house.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי תא שמע דאמר ריש לקיש זאת אומרת המוכר בית לחבירו ואמר לו על מנת שדיוטא העליונה שלי דיוטא העליונה שלו ואמרינן למאי הלכתא רב זביד אמר שאם רצה להוציא בה זיזין מוציא רב פפא אמר שאם רצה לבנות עלייה על גבה בונה

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear another proof, as Reish Lakish says: That is to say that with regard to one who sells a house to another and says to him: I am selling you this house on the condition that the upper story is mine, the upper story is his. And in the Gemara’s examination of Reish Lakish’s statement, we said: With regard to what halakha did Reish Lakish say this? In any case the upper story is his, as when he sold the house it was only the lower story that he sold to the buyer. Rav Zevid says: He said this to teach the halakha that if the seller wishes to extend from the upper story projections over the courtyard, which was included in the sale, he may extend them. Rav Pappa says: He said this to teach the halakha that if this upper story collapses and the seller wishes to build an upper story on top of it to replace it, he may build it.

ואי סלקא דעתך בסתמא לא קני למה לי על מנת אהני ליה על מנת דאי נפיל הדר בני לה:

And if it enters your mind to say that when a house is sold without specification, the buyer does not acquire the depth and the height of a house, Rav Pappa’s statement is puzzling. As why do I need the seller to stipulate that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his when in any event the space above the house remains in the seller’s possession? The Gemara answers: Stipulating that he is selling the house on the condition that the upper story is his benefits him in that if the upper story collapses, he may rebuild it. Without this stipulation the seller could not rebuild it, even if the sale did not include the depth and the height of the house.

מתני׳ לא את הבור ולא את הדות אף על פי שכתב לו עומקא ורומא וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך

MISHNA: One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut], even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale that he is selling him the depth and the height of the house, as anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller’s possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale.

ומודה רבי עקיבא בזמן שאמר לו חוץ מאלו שאין צריך ליקח דרך

And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.

מכרן לאחר רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך וחכמים אומרים צריך ליקח לו דרך:

If the seller kept the house, but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain.

גמ׳ יתיב רבינא וקא קשיא ליה היינו בור היינו דות אמר ליה רבא תוספאה לרבינא תא שמע דתניא אחד הבור ואחד הדות בקרקע אלא שהבור בחפירה והדות בבנין יתיב רב אשי וקא קשיא ליה היינו בור היינו דות אמר ליה מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי תא שמע דתניא אחד הבור ואחד הדות בקרקע אלא שהבור בחפירה והדות בבנין:

GEMARA: It is related that Ravina once sat and examined the matter and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Why, then, was it necessary to mention both of them? Rava Tosfa’a said to Ravina: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug out in the ground; the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls. It is similarly related that Rav Ashi once sat and posed a difficulty: A pit is the same as a cistern. Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a solution to this question, as it is taught in a baraita: Both a pit and a cistern are dug in the ground, the difference is only that a pit is constructed through digging alone, while a cistern is subsequently finished on the inside by building masonry walls.

וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך וכו׳: מאי לאו בהא קא מפלגי

§ The mishna teaches: And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase such a path. What, is it not about this issue, which will immediately be explained, that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree?

דרבי עקיבא סבר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ורבנן סברי מוכר בעין רעה מוכר ודקאמר נמי בעלמא רבי עקיבא לטעמיה דאמר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר מהכא

As Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, so that whatever is not explicitly excluded from the sale is assumed to be sold, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, so that whatever is not explicitly included in the sale is assumed to be unsold. And perhaps that which is also stated generally: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that one who sells, sells generously, is derived from here.

ממאי דלמא רבי עקיבא סבר אין אדם רוצה שיתן מעותיו וידרסוהו אחרים ורבנן סברי אין אדם רוצה שיטול מעות ויפרח באויר

The Gemara rejects this opinion and asks: From where do you arrive at such a conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis do not disagree whether, in principle, a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly, but rather their disagreement is limited to this specific case. As Rabbi Akiva holds that a person does not want to spend his money on the purchase of a house and then have others tread upon his property, and therefore he says that the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach his pit. And the Rabbis hold that a person does not want to receive money for the sale of his house and then have to fly through the air in order to reach his pit, and therefore they say that the seller presumably withheld for himself a path to his pit.

ואלא מסיפא מכרן לאחר רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך וחכמים אומרים צריך

Rather, the proof is from the last clause of the mishna, which states: If the seller kept the house but sold the pit and the cistern to another, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain. The tanna’im seem to disagree as to whether a person who sells, sells generously or sparingly.

דלמא בהאי פליגי דרבי עקיבא סבר בתר דעתא דלוקח אזלינן ורבנן סברי בתר דעתא דמוכר אזלינן

The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Perhaps they disagree about the following: Rabbi Akiva holds that we follow the intention of the buyer, as we assume that he would not have bought the pit if he would have to fly through the air to get there. And the Rabbis hold that we follow the intention of the seller, as presumably he would not have sold the pit if the buyer had the right to tread upon the seller’s property to reach it.

אלא מהא לא את הבור ולא את הגת ולא את השובך בין חרבין בין ישובין וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך

Rather, the proof that these tanna’im disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from this mishna (71a), which teaches: One who sells a field, even if he states that he is selling everything in it to the buyer, has sold neither the cistern, nor the winepress, nor the dovecote, whether it is abandoned or utilized, as these items are not part of the field itself. And the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer’s domain to reach whatever remains his. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase a path through the buyer’s domain.

הא תו למה לי אלא לאו הא קא משמע לן דרבי עקיבא סבר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ורבנן סברי מוכר בעין רעה מוכר

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I need this ruling as well, seeing that this case involving the sale of a field appears to be identical to that involving the sale of a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, and therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path to his property, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly, and therefore the purchase of such a path is not necessary?

ודלמא אשמועינן בית וקא משמע לן שדה וצריכא דאי אשמועינן בית משום דבעי צניעותא אבל שדה אימא לא

The Gemara rejects this opinion: Perhaps the first mishna taught us this dispute with regard to a house, and the later mishna teaches us this dispute with regard to a field. And while this may seem redundant, both rulings are necessary, as had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a house, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his house, because he desires privacy there. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that in the absence of an explicit stipulation, the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a field, which is exposed to all, say that the buyer is not concerned about privacy.

ואי אשמועינן שדה משום דקשי ליה דוושא אבל בית אימא לא

And, conversely, had the mishna taught us this halakha only with regard to a field, I would have said that the buyer is particular about people passing through his field, because treading upon the field is detrimental to it. And it is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva says that the seller must purchase for himself a path to the pit. But in the case of a house, which is not adversely affected by treading through it, say that the buyer is not opposed to the seller passing through.

אלא מסיפא מכרן לאחר רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך וחכמים אומרים צריך

Rather, the proof that Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree whether one who sells, sells generously or sparingly is from the latter clause of that mishna (71a), which teaches: But if the seller kept the field but sold the cistern and winepress to another person, Rabbi Akiva says: The buyer need not purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain to reach what he has bought, since a seller sells generously. But the Rabbis say: He must purchase for himself a path through the seller’s domain.

הא תו למה לי היינו הך אלא לאו הא קא משמע לן דרבי עקיבא סבר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ורבנן סברי מוכר בעין רעה מוכר שמע מינה

The Gemara explains the proof: Why do I also need this, seeing as this case involving the sale of a pit or a winepress in a field is identical to that involving the sale of a pit or a cistern in a house? Rather, is it not teaching us that Rabbi Akiva holds that one who sells, sells generously, while the Rabbis hold that one who sells, sells sparingly? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the latter clauses of these mishnayot that this is so.

איתמר רב הונא אמר רב

It was stated that the amora’im disagree about how the halakha should be decided with regard to this issue. Rav Huna says that Rav says: